DE.

Incredible that Coyle got until February. That disastrous lack of urgency essentially relegated us. Less than two years earlier Bowyer got binned in November, and we were 16th when he left. One can only speculate as to why Coyle in comparison got an extra four months to seal our fate in 16/17. One can also only speculate why ten years ago 16th in November wasn't acceptable, but now 20th in December is fine.

A significant portion of those still attending Ewood will be most loyal / apathetic towards the ownership. The majority of those who have had enough are already boycotting, albeit unofficially. It's why a boycott call now is so difficult for the Coalition - for those who agree with them, you're preaching to the choir and those people are probably, mostly, not attending anyway. That leaves you with the remaining group who will be very hard to convince to take action. It's not an enviable task. Granted there are a few on here who go but would boycott for the cause, as we've seen. I sadly think they are in the minority though - even if we're just talking a single game.

I saw Celtic's chairman resigned today after receiving significant threats. You wonder how a fanbase like that would react to being owned by a distant, immovable object like Venky's.

The only thing I probably would have changed about the original statement would have been the full boycott call. I think it's the right message, but for many who are still going that will be too much to stomach at this point in time. It might have been better to target one specific match to begin with, and go from there. I know Watford has since been designated as the game separately, but not sure if that came from the coalition or from a different entity. I think a single game to begin with would be more tolerable to a larger group of fans, and would give a focus point for both the campaign and the media. I think the reasons to boycott are implicit within the statement released, so I'm not sure it needed to be spelled out any further. Perhaps some bullet points on the specific intent to try and coerce those on the fence, but again, a lot of the reasons are in the statement and if one has read the entire thing it shouldn't be necessary to regurgitate the same points in an appeal to fans who, in all likelihood, will attend no matter what. You'll never get a full boycott from everyone - I'm sure the coalition understands that. There will always be a sizable group that are just going to see a team in blue-and-white playing each week. They concern themselves only with what's happening on the pitch, not the boardroom. No judgement from me on that, we all have our own ways of seeing things. Nonetheless, I think many would put the effort in for one match, and a sparse crowd still sends a message. A lot of the success of a theoretical single-match boycott call would, ultimately, come down to what our results are like leading up to whatever match the boycott is aimed at. Should we be on a winning streak of a few games, you're likely to see less people participate than if our form is as bad as it is right now. Not much anyone can do about that, though - it's just the way things are. Do I think any of the above will change things? Probably not - but why not try? Worst case scenario it has no affect and things stay as they are. Nothing gained, but nothing lost either. Best case scenario it does cause some kind of shift in dynamic, and is the start of some form of change.

Soon to be seven, I fear. Lord knows what this lot will do to us in January.

14 years ago this rhetoric was used when Kean was in charge to "back the boys" during the 2011 Christmas period. The crowd did their part. The team lost every match. Crowd size won't make a difference when we have a shit manager and average players (being kind). The owners showing actual ambition in their running of the club is how things turn around. We'll never see that though, so we're going nowhere whether 300 or 30,000 are at the ground.

On the positive side, if Big Mak can have a career as a professional footballer then anything truly is possible.

If they have a list it'll be scouted from teams in the relegation zone of obscure minor leagues, or players at average clubs who can't get a game.

Well done. Professional, to the point and putting across the exact message that needs to be put across. Unfortunately I think those willing to boycott are basically already unofficially doing so, even if they aren't calling it boycotting, but it's right to put the call out anyway. There's a difference between valuing the club as a whole and only valuing being a supporter of a club.

If Nancy was the best option they had then I don't know why they didn't just let him carry on. Not to say Nancy won't be a success eventually - stranger things have happened - but his résumé didn't exactly invoke the need for a swift appointment. Or being appointed at all.

Yep, Waggott/Mowbray was the Venky dream ticket - and the latter would certainly have stayed if offered an extension. One can only wonder if Suhail has been asked by his bosses at any point "why did we let that Mowbray fella leave again?" I'd guess not, as that would also assume the owners have any remote personal interest in the club, and there seems to be zero evidence that this is the case.

Lol, Celtic board probably already begging O'Neill to come back.

Maybe, but I think Eustace was smart enough to know we were capable of doing something that stupid, and he was prepared to get out at the first sign Venky's were gonna Venky.

For what it's worth I agreed with the majority of the statement, it was really only the last page I had an issue with. It implies that a statement from the owners would have value, when it wouldn't, and the suggestion is that if such a statement was released the coalition / trust would "continue to hold them accountable". Frankly, that is just a retread of the "critical friend" overtures that have failed for well over a decade. It didn't work with the FF, it didn't work with the AG, it didn't work with the Trust and it won't work now. The demand simply has to be for the owners to put the club up for sale. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether such a statement achieves anything is another matter - it probably won't - but my view is that this should be a message repeatedly reinforced no matter what. I'm just one guy from the outside looking in, so I don't expect any weight to be assigned to my thoughts, but nonetheless that's how I feel.

JDT will have looked at Mowbray's tenure and thought if I can have that time and manage to get some of that backing I can achieve something. The club seemingly agreed to his "project" at the beginning, so whilst I wouldn't have trusted the club to deliver, I can understand why he thought he might be able to do something here. Eustace knew what he was walking into and had an escape plan. Much like Lambert, he made sure he had a way to get out if all wasn't as it seemed. I think he believed the squad was good enough for him to do a decent job, and if things looked like they were heading south he could jump before the ship sank. There were risks involved, especially if he couldn't get the team into a decent position, but he did a good job and therefore had the interest needed from elsewhere to get away in time. Ismael also knew what he was walking into, but likely didn't have the leverage to negotiate a release clause. Maybe he does have one, but I'd be surprised. He's only comparable with Eustace in the sense they both knew what they were getting into. I agree that their situations are completely different otherwise.

I have zero sympathy for VI in terms of the position he's in. He knew the score when he arrived. Same with Eustace, for the record. JDT had made it publicly known he'd been messed about and not even allowed to resign. The only difference being that Eustace took us on as a calculated risk and made sure there was a release clause in his contract as an escape route. He had confidence he'd be able to do well enough in the meantime to generate interest and fair play to him, it worked. I doubt Ismael is in the same position, in any respect. He's likely stuck here. He'd have known what he was getting into though. He'll just have to deal with it I'm afraid.

This is a league where Preston are 3rd, and we can't beat any of the worst teams in it.

Ohashi is a great squad player. Doesn't have the talent to be a regular starter in a team with serious ambitions of top six, but we aren't a team with that ambition. Today has crystallised to me that, barring a January miracle where we seriously beef up this poor squad, we are going down. If Ohashi sticks around for League 1 I think he'll be decent there.

We can't score more than one goal in a match. We can't keep a clean sheet. Obvious that we will go down at this point.

Yeah, we're cooked.

Obviously, but still, if the coalition believes the current owners could be part of the solution then the group is unfortunately misaligned with my view. Venky's have had fifteen years and the only constant is failure (17/18 aside, but we were in League 1). They will always be part of the problem. The call must be for them to go and nothing else, in my opinion. Of course, the coalition can do as they please and if the idea is still to engage with the owners, good luck.

The only goal should be to remove them. I wouldn't care if they did give assurances about the club's future, because I don't trust them.

All relegated sides have hard luck stories. We set ourselves up for failure in the summer by jettisoning almost every player worth a damn and replacing them with cheap punts, or just not replacing them at all. The end result was entirely predictable, as many posts on here during pre-season will prove.

Lose this one and we really are in trouble. Not being able to beat any of the teams you're scrapping for survival with is a surefire way to get relegated.

I don't think Ismael is a particularly good manager, but yeah, for me the issue is and has always been those above the manager. The owners and those they employ to run the club are what is holding us down, not whichever patsy is sitting in the management dugout at any given time.